Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B False vacuum

  1. Jan 15, 2017 #1
    According to wiki reference. If our vacuum was a false vacuum, things can be destroyed when the true vacuum appears. But is there no way or exception for true vacuum to exist that would still have stable things? For example. if the true vacuum were negative (what else is there?).. why would it imply things getting destroyed like the following explanation showed:

    "If measurements of these particles suggests that our universe lies within a false vacuum of this kind, then it would imply—more than likely in many billions of years[16][Note 1]—that it could cease to exist as we know it, if a true vacuum happened to nucleate.[16]

    This is because, if the Standard Model is correct, the particles and forces we observe in our universe exist as they do because of underlying quantum fields. Quantum fields can have states of differing stability, including 'stable', 'unstable', or 'metastable' (meaning, long-lived but capable of being "toppled" in the right circumstances). If a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, then existing particles and forces would no longer arise as they do in the universe's present state. Different particles or forces would arise from (and be shaped by) whatever new quantum states arose."
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 16, 2017 #2
    Doesn't the last sentence of the quoted text pretty much answer your question?
     
  4. Jan 16, 2017 #3
    Is it not possible for there to be 2 simultaneous quantum fields and vacuum.. for example the false vacuum holding our standard model particles and the true vacuum holding let's say dark matter or other stuff?
     
  5. Jan 16, 2017 #4

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Not in a meaningful way. An interaction either exists or does not exist. A field either has one value or it has another value.
     
  6. Jan 17, 2017 #5
    Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't what oquen asking there simply are their fields that are not in their ground state? I.e.: Higgs?
     
  7. Jan 17, 2017 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I understood the question as "if we don't live in the true vacuum state, what happens when our vacuum decays?"

    We don't know if we live in the ground state. Current measurements are compatible with both cases.
     
  8. Jan 23, 2017 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The existing vacuum state of the universe is apparently robust having remained stable for billions of years. We should be the first to know were it to decay, given we reside in the most ancient region of the observable universe.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: False vacuum
  1. Boiling the Vacuum (Replies: 4)

  2. Vacuum decay (Replies: 12)

  3. Vacuum metastability (Replies: 3)

  4. True and False Vacuum (Replies: 1)

Loading...